I accept the ruling of the Supreme Court, and it's very clear. The Supreme Court, first, requires me to consider evidence, if any, on the impact of such a facility on crime rates. It also ruled that I must consider local conditions indicating the need for any such supervised injection site. It ordered that I consider the regulatory structure in place to support the facility. It also directs me to consider the resources available to support such a site, but perhaps most important, the Supreme Court was firm that expressions of community support or opposition need to be considered.
And the criteria, we hope, have fleshed out the direction from the Supreme Court.
I would just add that the court wrote this in its ruling, and that's why there's a cautious approach:
...[this] is not a licence for injection drug users to possess drugs wherever and whenever they wish. Nor is it an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a “safe...[consumption] facility”.
So, yes, there are criteria both on the public health side and on the public safety side. We've taken seriously what the Supreme Court has directed. We're trying to flesh out the criteria with which we think we'll meet that, including consultations with municipalities.